The Daily times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1886-1889, 1887-01-07
THE RIDDLEBERGER BILL
As Viewed by the "Dispatch."
[Dispatch of September IS. ISL

/ TUCTT Wis ICNET d1N NFTIOTTS WIIICUIIy rs 10 THF
merits of the debt, it was justly and honestly
due, but the weakness which induces men TO
avoid honest payment upOna legal bubble was
too strong in the then infant State, and Mime
sofa was permitted TO take a place among the
repudiating States. BY way of clinching this
reputation an amendment was made 10 the
State Constitution, prohibiting any legislation
looking to the payment of the debt unless the
law for that purpose was submitted to a vote
of the people, and was approved by them.
Some years later a bill authorizing the pay
ment of these bonds at the reasonable terms
offered by the holders was submitted to q vote
of the people, and the bill was voted down.
At the last session of the Legislature the credi-
tors, who have become impoverished by the
bad faith of the State, offered TO accept what
would be about 80 per cent. of the debt. and
the Legislature passed a law submitting the
acceptance of this offer TO a vote of the people,
subject, however, to a preliminary submission
TO the courts OF the question whGj her this law,
even If ratified by a vote OF the people, would
be constitutional.
THE court has manfully and bravely met
this question. IL has decided that in issuing
the bonds the State had entered into a con
tract 10 pay them according TO their tenor, and
that the amendment 10 the State Constitution
was in violation of the National Constitution,
which prohibits any impairment on contracts,
and was, therefore, void. The Constitutions
Amendment which made any law providing
for the payment of these bonds dependent on
its approval by a vote of the people was there
fore unconstitutional"
That's just what would be decided in a case
under the Riddleberger bill-namely. that in
issuing her bonds Virginia had entered into a
contract to pay them according TO their tenor, v
and therefore that said bill is lin violation of
the national Constitution, which prohibits any
impairment of contracts, and is therefore
void" 1.-THE law WHICH makes any bill provid-
ing for the payment Of these bonds dependent
on its approval by a vote Of the people is
therefore unconstitutional"
The Philadelphia Press, a staunch Malone
! organ and a manor on which T. 4 Rt1rr 10 ON
pl0yed-the same Burr who came to Virginia
in 1880 and tried TO withdraw the Garfield cleo
tOral ticket in the interest of the Malone cleo
tOral ticket-understands the Minnesota case.
That journal says:
"In 1851 Minnesota, then a Territory, issued
its bonds 10 the amount of S2,.215,00OtO promote
the construction Of railroads. through its
sparselY-Settled lands. = = \ constitutional
amendment was adopted in 1860 providing that
any proposition looking to the payment Of this
debt should first be submitted TO the people
for approval. = = Last winter the discOur-
aged creditors offered to take fifty cents on the
dollar, and the Legislature passed a law sub
hitting the acceptance of their offer to Il vote
Of the people, subject, however, to prelimi-
nary submission TO the courts on the question
of its cOnStitutiOnality.
18th Supreme Court of the State has re
Gently passed upon the question. = lt de
cides that the amendment To the State Consti-
tuition, which says that no law providing fOr
the payment of the railroad bonds shall take
effect until approved by the people. was void
as impairing the obligation of a contract con
trary TO the prohibition of the national COnsti-
tuition. This decision leaves the way clear for
the Legislature TO make provisions for the pay
ment of the debt whenever il shall summon W
sufficient virtue to do So"
The Wing says:
ut is simply prepOsterOus TO deduce from
that judgment the principle that legislatures
may not of their own accord submit to the vote
OF the people anything they choose which Is
not in itself unconstitutional"
I.,nA ~. sIH ..rlsAI - 800 IN ftnalt M
constitutional" But that's the very point
The Riddleberger bill is in itself uncOnstitu
tiOnal. It's authors are afraid 10 allow 1t to bt
passed upon by the Supreme Court of Appeals
They have, therefore, inserted III 1t an uncon
stitutional provision vainly attempting TO de
prive that high tribunal of It's constitutions
Jurisdiction. We doubt if there is even Il Re
adjustcr judge in Virginia who would not pro
nOunce the Riddlebergcr bid uncOnstitutiona
if it were argued before him and he were com
PEELED TO decide the case. The reputation o.
AZ per cent. of the cOnsOl bonds and 30 per cent
Of the peelers is certainly uncOnstitutiOnal
There can be no doubt upoII this point. These
unconstitutional provisions are to be submit
ted TO a vote of the people. Clearly the Min
nesOta decision covers the case. There IS NJ
room for doubt.
The Wing says:
Curious to say, the Minnesota decision prac
tically s~ustains the complete reputation o
the bonds"
The Wing is entirely wrong. The court de
cided, on the contrary, as follows 1--WE quot
the Chicago Times:
First, that the constitutional amendmen
Of 1860 requiring the question Of the paymen
of the railroad bonds 10 be submitted to tn
people is void because it impair
The obligation of the contract between tn,
State and the bOndhOlders.'
What could be p%lainerI Instead of sustain
ing 1.-THE complete reputation of the bonds.
the decision protects these bones because the!
constitute a contract between the State an,
the bOndholders." The Times also says:
"The decision + q is regarded as Il victor,
for the debt-paying forty-seven."
All the journals in the United States whicl
have spoken Of the case have, 81
far as their articles have come under on
notice, treated the decision as one manifest.
in favor of paying the debt. Read again tn
quotations above given from the Chicago Fri
bune and the Philadelphia Press. Read ais
again the following from the Chicago Times:
Tho decision of the Supreme COur Of Min
nesOta i'm relation 10 the debt Of that State /
important, not only because Of its local effect
but because of the broad principle it enun
ciates, which is applicable 10 every act of Re
pudiatiOn, legislative or constitutional, adOpte'
in other States"
Certainly not. But the Riddleberger bill
does "repudiaten the debt of Virginia-E pc
cent. of the principal ofthc cOnsol bonds, an
nearly three-fOurths Of the interest. IL doe
repudiate 40 dollars of every lO00dOllar bOnd
and A dollars and ten cents Of every sixt.
dollars of interest. Clearly such a bill is un
constitutional under the Minnesota decision.
But the Wing |blunders all through its arti
Gle. 1t misundcrstandS the decision, and run
on in the following style:
There is no hint anywhere i'm the decision
that "A constitutional provision requiring sue
vote, which did not at the same time suspen
or repudiate the debt, would be unconstitl
tional, or that, i'm like case, a Legislature nigh
not at its own discretion submit any of its act
for popular ratification or rejection.
There are honest Headjusters. They sin
cerely desire tn, public-debt question 10 b
! faLpn ont Df NIB les If they are allowed Il
continue 10 suppose that the Riddleberger bi
will accomplish that end. they may vote tn
Readjuster ticket lust this one time" Blu
we can't afford TO lose any true Democrats thi
year on any such issue. See 10 IL, therefore
that You expose that bill. All you have 10 d
i'm order To see its enOrmities is TO read il
Speak for Daniel, Barbour, and Mckinney, anC
if possible, induce every friend of real read
justment TO vote for them.